Tommy Udo 6 wrote:mjaye wrote:Link: 53. How do retired players count against the cap?Teams are not allowed to trade for disabled players and then apply for this salary cap relief. Only the team for which the player was playing when he was disabled may request this relief.
The Bulls would be walking a fine line..
If James medically retires, he is no longer a tradeable asset. James' contract is VERY attractive as a trade asset, not only because it's expiring, but also because 80% is covered by insurance.
Medical retirement only works to the Bulls favor
IF they are granted salary relief. James will have to be medically retired for one year before the Bulls can apply for salary relief.
If the Board rules the injury that disabled him to the point of medical retiirement was prior to being traded, the Bulls get no salary relief (IE lux tax breathing room).
If you want an idea of how this might play out, keep an eye on December 11th, 2009, it's the date the New York Knicks can officially request salary relief for Cuttino Mobley's medical retirement.
IMO the wording of the rule indicates the Bulls wouldn't get the relief.
First, the guy who wrote those answers is the guy who answered my question about LUXURY TAX.
I am not concerned about salary cap. I know that JJ's salary will count against Bulls cap.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether JJ's salary will count when the LUXURY TAX is determined on June 30, 2010 (if JJ is still on the Bulls salary).
By the Way - there is a thread on Mobley on the same Forum & Larry Coon writes this: However, the Knicks are not eligible for a DPE or salary cap relief. They're also applying for luxury tax relief, and that's a Board of Governors decision.
See - it all boils down to the Board of Governors decision. Larry's comment in my original posting is "the Board of Governors can exclude the salary of disabled players from the luxury tax,
and typically does so"
I wouldnt have started this thread if i didnt have a comment direct from larry Coon. I know it's not a clear cut issue
The only problem I see with your question that Larry Coon answered is you failed to mention JJ suffered the injury PRIOR to being traded, you're assuming he knew this and responded accordingly.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=907734&start=120That's the thread about Mobley, more specifically Larry says (the 3 he mentions is in reference to Lux tax relief)
"I hear they're applying for 3, and that's a Board of Governors decision. I don't know if this one has a similar restriction to 1 & 2 (it's not in the CBA). If it can only be claimed by the team that had the player at the time, then the Knicks will be ineligible for this one too."
I don't recollect there being a precedent set where a team was granted lux tax relief but not salary cap relief for a medically retired player that suffered the injury on a previous team. Larry confirms that this is a gray area because luxury tax relief is not clearly outlined.
Reading back a page it's also stated (by kosmovitelli)
For trade purposes, the contract may have value because it's insured but there are no luxury tax savings with Mobley (or any other injured player). That's for sure. It was a loophole in the previous CBA (1999-2005) but the current CBA took care of that.
This would seem to indicate the Lux tax relief is bound by the same rules as Salary cap relief.
I'm holding out the same hope that we will be granted lux tax relief for JJ's contract, but i'm not holding my breath. I also mentioned a few posts above how keeping JJ's contract can actually benefit Bulls when it comes to signing BG